Thursday, January 21, 2010


State of Disunion

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." --Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution

On Wednesday, 27 January, Barack Hussein Obama will deliver his first "State of the Union" speech as president, a self evaluation of his first year's achievements.

Sprinkled between his infamous "let me be clear" or "make no mistake" introduction to his lies, he will, characteristically, attempt to spin a plethora of failures into something including these phony fallback phrases: back from the brink; signs of recovery; restored our reputation; achieved some successes; more work yet to do; fiscal restraint; greed on Wall Street; affordable health care; relief for working families; job creation.

He'll also use the word "inherited," as in "I inherited this mess." He'll speak of "unprecedented" reforms or achievements or challenges. And he'll mention "those who seek to do us harm," but he won't dare utter the term "Islamic terrorists."

In advance of his teleprompted propaganda, then, let's take a reality check on Obama and his first year.

Never before in the history of our great nation has any sitting president held so much disregard and outright contempt for our Constitution and Rule of Law.

Perhaps the operative words in his oath were, "to the best of my ability"?

Of course, what were we to expect from a Marxist, whose views on government and economy were shaped by his surrogate father and communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis; whose first campaign for political office was launched by Maoist anarchists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; whose political career has been stewarded by the likes of Leftists Richard Daley, Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, et al.

And don't forget his religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children.

Wright preached hate, plain and simple: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government gives [black people] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, g-d d--- America. G-d d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. G-d d--- America."

Wright sermonized that our great nation is in fact the "U.S. of KKK-A" and is "controlled by and run by rich white people. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in god. And god has got to be sick of this sh-t!"

How did Obama respond when asked about his pastor's perennial anti-American tirades? "It sounds like he was trying to be provocative," concludes Obama.

At a foundational level, Obama's ability and his agenda have been shaped first and foremost by his condition as a pathological narcissist, a young man driven by a blinding need for acceptance and its coefficient, power -- the result of a childhood characterized by his father's, and then stepfather's, rejection.

It should be noted that the young Barry Obama did not ask for or deserve the hardship he suffered as a child any more than millions of other children abandoned by their fathers today. In that respect, he deserves our compassion.

However, Obama's insatiable pathological need for power renders him a very dangerous person in power.

He was elected on a promise that should have served as a warning sign: "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

He ran his charismatic campaign on a promise of "hope," but in the words of Patrick Henry, "It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts."

As for "fundamentally transforming" our nation, that is a thinly veiled reference to an outright assault on our Constitution and our Essential Liberty, one that thrusts an ever more powerful central government upon us.

Not since 1860 has the Union been at such odds with the fundamental rights of the States and the People.

Obama's effort to endow the central government with absolute authority follows his Socialist political playbook, Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Obama was elected just weeks after an economic collapse which can be tied directly to Leftist economic policies.

His effort to "Reclaim America" involves taxing and borrowing more than a trillion dollars from the private sector, sifting it through the bureaucracies of his political appointees, then "investing" it into the public sector to grow government and pay off his special interest constituencies and other benefactors.

He is plundering private sector resources under the pretense of private sector "job creation."

He has attempted, with some success, to nationalize, by way of regulation, coercion or "investment," the major industrial and service segments of the economy -- including energy, banking, investment, education, insurance, automotive and real estate -- and he has supplanted free enterprise with Socialism.

He is endeavoring to nationalize our nation's largest single economic sector, health care, and he laughs off any suggestion that there is no constitutional authority for such folly. Moreover, the House version creates 111 new oversight bureaucracies. (1)

He has attempted to advance his domestic agenda on a global scale under the guise of "climate change."

Further, Obama's national security failures present even greater peril to life and liberty.

Coddling Islamic extremists, bowing to Saudi kings, apologizing to the world, politicizing terrorist interrogation methods at Gitmo, treating terrorism as "criminal activity" and moving the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, using Operation Enduring Freedom as campaign fodder and setting a timeframe for withdrawal from Afghanistan -- these and many more grossly errant policy decisions served only to hinder and demoralize us and our allies while empowering and emboldening our enemies, thus enabling jihadi attacks such as the murder of 12 soldiers, one civilian, and an unborn baby at Ft. Hood, and the narrowly averted bombing of a U.S. airliner this past Christmas Day.

Of course, there were other ridiculous gaffes, like the one at his last public press conference (six months ago), when he offered his impromptu assessment of the arrest of his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, by claiming that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly." His subsequent "beer summit" was a forced and feeble attempt at damage control.

And then there was the Nobel Peace Prize, a ridiculous Euro-leftist albatross of an award that was bestowed upon Obama just days after he ascended to the presidency.

Were it not for the threat of unbridled laughter, Obama's SotU address might also reflect on some of the most egregious prevarications from his brief tenure.

On his plans for massive government expansion: "Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't."

On his grand Socialist schemes: "I've never bought into these Malthusian, woe, Chicken Little, the earth is falling -- I tend to be pretty optimistic."

On the so-called "stimulus package" (i.e., record debt): "Less than one month after taking office, we enacted the most sweeping recovery package in history, and we did so without any of the earmarks, pork-barrel projects that are usually accompanying these big -- these big bills."

On bailouts for behemoth auto producers: "Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM."

On his friends at ACORN: "You know, it's -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."

On blame shifting: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."

On taxes: "I will tax just the rich. I want to give a tax cut to the middle class."

On the cost of ObamaCare: "It won't add to the deficit. And I mean it! ... It's designed to lower it!" And how about this one: "I have not said I am in favor of a single-payer system."

On the transparency of his health care "reform" deliberations: "It's going to be on C-SPAN."

On jobs (record unemployment): "My administration has created or saved... [ad nauseam]." (2)

On the political influence of grassroots Tea Party participants: "Those people waving their little tea bags around..."

Clearly, Obama has underestimated the influence of those who support America's First Principles. In addition, he has also grossly misread his mandate as the heir of the once-noble Democratic Party.

These miscalculations were manifest in the recent Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, and again this week in Massachusetts.

Who woulda thunk it -- that in the most liberal state of the union, whose legislature hastily amended laws so the governor could immediately appoint a Demo replacement for the seat vacated by the U.S. Senate's most liberal member, Ted Kennedy, who had occupied the seat for 47 years since the departure of his brother, JFK, and whose life ambition was to nationalize health care, whose designated replacement, Martha Coakley ran on his platform -- who woulda thunk that a Democrat who just weeks ago held a 30-point lead in the polls would be defeated by Scott Brown, a moderate Republican state legislator of the Mitt Romney variety, who ran on a platform against nationalized health care?

Clearly, the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts is a major reality check for Obama. When asked about the rising rejection of his "vision" for America, Obama responded, "I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."

In other words, "The people are just too dumb."

And speaking of "the people," when Scott Brown was asked in his last debate with Coakley if he would be willing to "sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat" and vote against the health care bill, he responded, "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedy seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

Every Republican and Independent running for election or re-election in 2010 should, first, take that cue from Brown -- the seats they seek belong to the people. Second, they should take a cue from Ronald Reagan, who left a timeless template for success: Run on a platform that, first and foremost, insists on the re-establishment of constitutional Rule of Law, and then governs accordingly.

For too long, too many Americans have been complacent about liberty, believing it to be their birthright and the birthright of generations to come. They have enjoyed the fruit of liberty defended by others, taking rights for granted and knowing nothing of the obligations for maintaining that blessing.

Most Americans have never had to fight for liberty and, thus, have little concept of its value or any sense of gratitude for its accumulated cost -- a cost paid by generations of Patriots who have pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was an egregious affront to our legacy of Essential Liberty, and a clarion call to action for the many good citizens who honor the rights and obligations of citizenship.

As was the case with the first American Revolution, we now face a crucial battle for liberty. The upcoming elections, more than any other in recent history, are about the restoration of constitutional integrity.

Indeed, fellow Patriots, this is our time. The road to recovery is long, but the momentum is with us.

Footnotes: 1. With the election of Brown, ObamaCare in its present form is dead, but expect Obama to call for passage of revised legislation, which has support of both Republicans and Democrats. Once passed, it can then be readily amended.

2. Credit where credit due -- Obama's recovery plan has not created any real jobs, but it did secure new employment for at least three Republicans: One in Virginia, one in New Jersey and now one in Massachusetts.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment